Domain Empire

new gtlds Domain names ending in .tube available tomorrow

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Arpit131

Top Member
Impact
4,441
Domain name for video creators is launching.

Domain names ending in .tube will become available starting tomorrow.

The new domain option is targeted to video creators. I’m sure a big portion of this is the adult community, which has created all sorts of sites ending in “tube.”

.Tube domains will be available at about 50 registrars for around $30. Notably absent from the list is GoDaddy.


Source
 
3
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
As someone who has worked on a YouTube channel before, and in thinking about the extension .TUBE, it didn't make me think of the adult industry @Arpit131 That would discourage real content generators from adopting and using the extension.

It is actually a great idea for YouTubers to migrate to their own website. Many of them also have their own online stores and using a website instead of YouTube alone would make their products more visible and easier to purchase.

Some of the top YouTubers include:
- Fitness Gurus
- Makeup Gurus
- DIY Gurus
- Vloggers (everyday reality show)

If I was still involved with a YouTube channel, I would purchase one (and use it).
 
3
•••
I was wondering about .tube as well. I think it would make sense for youtube channel owners to grab a .tube domain.

I guess if I was setting up a niche video site a .tube TLD could make sense... for example a video site dedicated to recipes/cooking or something ... then food.tube or recipe.tube or cooking.tube...

If the the popular youtubers climb on board and start using the TLD it would be good free marketing for the .tube tld because some of these youtubers have a massive audience.
 
2
•••
Another one that will be going down the tubes.
 
3
•••
Another one that will be going down the tubes.

There are only 123 million domain names in .com and prices are already 7 to 8 figures sometimes.

With 1.5 billion citizens in China, 300 million in the US and 500+ million in India, the demand cannot be satisfied by the legacy TLDs alone. Especially once Facebook starts allowing people to use custom URLs like Blogger and Wordpress do. It will happen.

There is a reason why ICANN is releasing 1,000 GTLDs. Major changes in Internet culture, domain names and the Internet in general is right around the corner.

Try to have some foresight @Kate
 
1
•••
Someone will be more rich tomorrow and he won't a registrant...
 
0
•••
With 1.5 billion citizens in China, 300 million in the US and 500+ million in India, the demand cannot be satisfied by the legacy domain names alone.
It is a common misconception among domainers.

All those people don't need domain names, the majority of people (even in the West) don't need domain names and will never buy one either unless they are in business (or want to run a blog or have their own E-mail addresses). People use free E-mail like gmail and that's it.

To go to the Internet, people need just an IPv4/IPv6 address.

So the potential market is NOT 1.5 billion + 300 million + 500 million new buyers, it's just a tiny portion of that. And we don't need hundreds of narrow-purpose strings to satisfy the 'demand'. In fact, it is striking that the demand still concentrates on the so-called legacy TLDs. Because the actual demand is overestimated in the first place.

Of course, demand will continue to grow, but not exponentially like some domainers believe. It's not like consumers are desperate and running out of options, and willing to buy whatever crap that they are offered.
 
3
•••
It is a common misconception among domainers.

All those people don't need domain names, the majority of people (even in the West) don't need domain names and will never buy one either unless they are in business (or want to run a blog or have their own E-mail addresses). People use free E-mail like gmail and that's it.

To go to the Internet, people need just an IPv4/IPv6 address.

So the potential market is NOT 1.5 billion + 300 million + 500 million new buyers, it's just a tiny portion of that. And we don't need hundreds of narrow-purpose strings to satisfy the 'demand'. In fact, it is striking that the demand still concentrates on the so-called legacy TLDs. Because the actual demand is overestimated in the first place.

Of course, demand will continue to grow, but not exponentially like some domainers believe. It's not like consumers are desperate and running out of options, and willing to buy whatever crap that they are offered.

I don't think you understood my point, or maybe you can't see anything but 2016. I am buying and re-organizing my portfolio.

Short but meaningful names. Stay on the sidelines if you choose. As many on here have said, to each their own.
 
1
•••
I don't think you understood my point, or maybe you can't see anything but 2016. I am buying and re-organizing my portfolio.

Short but meaningful names. Stay on the sidelines if you choose. As many on here have said, to each their own.

If it's one thing that we have learned over and over and over and over and over again from history is that when a system is in place and people continue to follow the system over and over again and almost religiously then sure the system starts to run reliably BUT little or no progress or advancement is made, so the system remains stagnant... in order for any system to evolve change has to be introduced, when there is change the system is given the opportunity to grow, yes there could be some instability but it is during this instability that growth takes place. The problem comes in when people who are so dedicated to the current system refuse to consider the possibility of change and try to defend the system at all costs.

Two relevant quotes by George Bernard Shaw:

"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything"

"You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?"
 
1
•••
2
•••
If it's one thing that we have learned over and over and over and over and over again from history is that when a system is in place and people continue to follow the system over and over again and almost religiously then sure the system starts to run reliably BUT little or no progress or advancement is made, so the system remains stagnant...
New extensions do not stand for progress, they work exactly the same as old extensions.

The Internet has changed a lot, but the underlying infrastructure (DNS, protocols) is awfully old (>30 years) and stable.

When you think of it, the telephone system is more than a century old. We now have more numbers and they are longer. We still use numbers and they work just fine. The DNS is not broken.
Telephone numbers could be compared to IPv4 addresses, and it's true that we are running out of IPv4 addresses. The supply of domain name is infinite, it's just quality that is scarce.

When you understand this, you can see that to a huge extent, new extensions are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
0
•••
New extensions do not stand for progress, they work exactly the same as old extensions.

The Internet has changed a lot, but the underlying infrastructure (DNS, protocols) is awfully old (>30 years) and stable.

When you think of it, the telephone system is more than a century old. We now have more numbers and they are longer. We still use numbers and they work just fine. The DNS is not broken.
Telephone numbers could be compared to IPv4 addresses, and it's true that we are running out of IPv4 addresses. The supply of domain name is infinite, it's just quality that is scarce.

When you understand this, you can see that to a huge extent, new extensions are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I have a very in-dept understanding of DNS protocols and IPv4 address. However this is irrelevant to my point.

I never said that the DNS was broken.

The adage "if it aint broken then don't fix it" is counter productive. That sort of mentality does not promote growth and innovation. If technology conformed to this sort of thinking then we would have never invented mobile phones. The old fixed line phones worked perfectly fine (better quality calls than most mobile phones even) Yes they were not portable but people didn't know any better and we all simply accepted that we can not make phone calls whilst on the move. It was a given and we adapted our lifestyles to accommodate this. The phone system worked, it was not broken. Did it need fixing? Nope it didn't but introducing change caused the system to evolve at a rapid pace. Without change this would have never happened.
 
2
•••
3
•••
0
•••
1st Day New gTLD Total .Tube Winds Up With Just 647 Registrations

"As we highlighted yesterday, many of the “better” .tube domain names were reserved or have very high premium prices up to $112,500."

What, I can't believe the registry reserved the good names for themselves, truly shocking. Premium prices up to $112,500, haha

http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/08/1st-day-new-gtld-total-tube-winds-just-647-registrations/

Today I registered this 3 character (LNL) .tube domain:

Y0U.TUBE | y0u.tube

Your opinion/s is / are welcome, find more in this nP thread:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/y0u-tube-y0u-tube-y-zero-digit-u-tube.957689/

Is there some strange contest I'm unaware of on who can register the worst names?
 
4
•••
1st Day New gTLD Total .Tube Winds Up With Just 647 Registrations

"As we highlighted yesterday, many of the “better” .tube domain names were reserved or have very high premium prices up to $112,500."

What, I can't believe the registry reserved the good names for themselves, truly shocking. Premium prices up to $112,500, haha

http://www.thedomains.com/2016/07/08/1st-day-new-gtld-total-tube-winds-just-647-registrations/



Is there some strange contest I'm unaware of on who can register the worst names?

I am sure the worst names would not get your attention.
 
0
•••
0
•••
As I already stated in the mentioned link / thread, I discovered my love to 3 character LNL CHIPS with the extension .tube
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back